Zuel v. Bowen
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 1875 WL 8461,78 Ill. 234 |
| Parties | ARCHIBALD ZUELv.THOMAS BOWEN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Grundy county; the Hon. JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding.
Mr. S. W. MUNN, for the appellant.
Mr. W. T. HOPKINS, and Messrs. RICKOLSON & SNOW, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was a suit brought by Thomas Bowen, before a justice of the peace of Grundy county, on a promissory note for $200, against Archibald Zuel and G. A. Randall. The summons was served on Zuel, but Randall was not found. On the trial before the justice of the peace, Zuel filed this plea:
“And now comes the said Archibald Zuel, one of the said defendants in the above entitled cause, and says ‘that he neither signed or authorized, nor consented to the execution of the said note declared on,’ and of the truth of this, he puts himself upon the country, etc.”
This plea was verified by his affidavit, in which he states that it is true in substance and in fact.
The note was signed by “Randall & Zuel.” They were summoned by the names of “Archibald Zuel and Gresham Randall, firm of Randall & Zuel.” On a trial before the justice, plaintiff recovered a judgment for the amount of the note, and Zuel appealed to the circuit court, where a trial de novo was had, with a similar result, and he brings the record to this court on an appeal, and asks a reversal.
The error assigned is, that the court, against the objections of appellant, permitted the note to be read in evidence, without any proof of its execution, notwithstanding the sworn plea. On the other hand, it is claimed that there was no error, as the plea is claimed to be too narrow to operate as a denial that it was rightfully executed by Randall as a partner and on behalf of the firm; that it may be conceded that Zuel did not execute the note, or that he did not consent to it, or authorize it to be done, and yet Randall may have had ample power to sign the note in the name of the firm. Appellant claims that the plea puts in issue that question as well as the other.
The policy of our statute seems to be to free proceedings before justices of the peace, as far as possible, from technicalities, and still enable the parties to have a fair trial. It is not practicable, before persons who have not made the study of pleadings, evidence and practice, to have observed the same niceties in these branches of jurisprudence as obtain in the superior courts, nor is it desirable that it should. The great object is, that the parties litigant in that forum may have a cheap and speedy administration of justice, freed from unnecessary forms, and the burthens imposed upon litigation in the superior courts by the employment of counsel. This being the case, we only look to substance, and disregard form in the proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Montemy
...Vaughn v. Thompson, 15 Ill. 39; Swingley v. Haynes, 22 Ill. 214; Thompson v. Sutton, 51 Ill. 213; Allen v. Nichols, 68 Ill. 250; Zuel v. Bowen, 78 Ill. 234. The summons issued by the justice was the commencement of the suit, and no demand maturing after that time could be given in evidence:......
-
Cott v. Sprague
... ... HENRY BOOTH, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed February 4, 1880.Messrs. ELDRIDGE & TOURTELLOTTE, for appellant, cited Zuel v. Bowen, 78 Ill. 234; Evans v. Barton, 85 Ill. 579.Messrs. BECKER & DALE, for appellee; that there being no errors assigned upon the transcript of ... ...
-
Mccoy v. Babcock
...Co. v. McCutchin, 27 Ill. 10; Coulterville v. Gillen, 72 Ill. 599; Waterman v. Bristol, 1 Gilm. 593; Minard v. Lawlor, 26 Ill. 302; Zuel v. Bowen, 78 Ill. 234; Jacksonville v. Block, 36 Ill. 507; Cassieberry v. Forquer, 27 Ill. 170; Lucas v. LeCompte, 42, Ill. 303. Mr. J. B. Clark and Mr. A......
-
Heeney v. Alcock
...one partner outside the scope of the partnership business, without consent of his co-partner, is not binding upon the co-partner: Zuel v. Bowen, 78 Ill. 234; Wittram v. Van Wormer, 44 Ill. 525. Mr. FRANK H. COLLIER, for appellees; that to make such contract illegal, there must be a mutual i......